Bitcoin is not a democracy. I thought we've covered this already.
No amount of miners, devs, or users can force a bitcoin user to accept a rule change.
If 99.99% of the bitcoin world changes a rule, and I keep using the old rules, there is now a fork. (Pre-fork coins will now exist on both forks!)
Only free market forces will ultimately kill a fork. If no one gives value to the coins on a fork, it will stall. (It can even be started again, if a single copy remains, should someone decide they value it sometime in the future.)
Bitcoin is the free market in full effect.
In a democracy, the majority makes the rules and everyone must abide by them or suffer the consequences (whatever the majority decides those consequences are).
You know what? I could also start my own little state here, right here in my apartment and declare sovereignty. But you really know what? That does not make Denmark less a democracy. And you know what else? People would laugh at you and not respect your sovereign state, they would likely put in a cell with soft walls. You people are just of far off in your own little philosophical libertard world where everything is redefined to suit your state of mind. Wake up people and join me, Marx, and Stalin, and the rest of the world. Wow, a little grumpy are you? A difference of opinion doesn't make you right. M Don't tell me this is SEC_Agent reincarnated... |
|
|
|
lol, well there was certainly some intelligent designing going on there. But let's think about what the really did. No one has ever created life from scratch. In this example a bacteria was modified to accept a "man-made" DNA sequence. This was made possible because we know what DNA is and how it functions in evolution. Indeed this experiment is another confirmation of evolution. In the future perhaps there will be a truly synthetic life form. If that happens then intelligent design will be a real thing, but it wont change our history of having evolved. To a biologist, all living things are the same living thing. I don't know why, but a DNA molecule started replicating in the past. It is still doing it and has branched into many species. Plants, animals, fungi, all are the same and one can even swap DNA between them. We are going to see some crazy things soon. Look, I already knew how you were going to respond. In so doing you admit that I have refuted your prior argument. That was easy because it was "classical Darwinism". Then you proceed to admit the future holds "crazy things". So we are in agreement. However, you can't duck and dodge the matter, even though you've tried. Neither is it proper to 'shift the goalposts' regarding the assertions of the religous ID crowd in order to substantiate the scientific approach and accomplishments.  Look, the problem is not in a scientific approach to Intelligent Design - it's with a religious approach. We have had and will have Intelligent Design, period. We've had a little of it and we're going to have boatloads of it. When I say this, it means I don't need to refute your other statements, because we agree on the fundamentals. Let me know if you think that sums it up nicely. I'm not sure I totally understand. You are drawing a distinction between those who are interested in ID for religious vs. scientific reasons? Because science is open to any question. "Could all this be created by an intelligence?" is a fair question, but I am not aware of any result indicating it. And I am not disputing that genetic engineering is a kind of "intelligent designing" in nature. Now that evolution it is understood at a chemical level it can be tinkered with. That is all based on Darwin's work. The main thing that has changed since his original theory is that more mechanisms for evolution have been found. Darwin noticed "natural selection". Which is still recognized as the primary driver in nature. Does all that mean we agree? Maybe. We might assert that scientists see ID as the future, where fundamentalists see it as the past. Further, that fundamentals see ID as the work in the past of a supreme being, and refuse to consider other sources of intelligence which may exist in the universe as causative. Therefore, the argument of a religious fundamentalist on ID is flawed in the premises (God is the only cause of ID) and in the method (ID is shown to exist) and then the conclusion (God exists). But this is NOT an argument against ID, only against it's abuse. (ROFL here....) |
|
|
|
Causality is only meaningful within the universe.
This is the correct answer although IIRC it is a fairly recent discovery. I first heard in in a discussion by Stephen Hawking. Similarly regarding infinite distance: No, the universe curves in on itself and is finite. Distance has no meaning "outside the Universe". And time is finiite. So what was there before the last "big bang?" Undefined. Although in now thinking about it I can't see why one couldn't develop mathematics to discuss things prior to our outside the Universe, somewhat similar to imaginary numbers. |
|
|
|
.... Yap, that falls into solipsism, and that is the only thing I reject on faith. Reminds me of the joke about the hydrogen atom that went to his neighboring hydrogen atom and with a very worried, look, said: "Have you seen my electron? I've lost it. I can't find it anywhere in the clouds of uncertainty!" The neighbor said "You certain about that?" The H replied "I'm positive..." But for someone to assert that this does not exist unless we exist and conceive of it, is ridiculous....although it is an ancient philosophical construct, rediscovered... |
|
|
|
We're the sucker generation.
You can say that again!  The reason the bill has so many uncertainties and illogical aspects is because it was passed as an incomplete piece of legislation and never went back to committee. They will try to iron out these problems through fiat, whether it is legal or not. Executive orders and mandates by the new agencies, plus the thug power of the IRS will be the standard, not the exception. This is necessary because the bill was not completed. Part of that will be forcing of young people to pay. Another part will be forcing the many, many companies who are using 32 hour workweeks to avoid Obamacare costs to enter the system. The enforcement agency used will be the IRS. It won't be pretty. The conservative Republicans, the Tea Party and others are not going to quit fighting this thing and it deserves to be fought. |
|
|
|
.....I am no longer willing to intervene to defend a stranger. If I see someone being hacked to death by a crazy guy, I will draw my weapon and cover my retreat. It is just to legally risky to help.
No. There are options. For example, you might try: "Leave him alone! He's mine, I want to hack him to death. Get away!" Then when the perp comes at you.... |
|
|
|
....I personally believe if enough people beginning using bit coins, tax revenue will plummet.....
So bit coin would destroy any socialistic health plan through cutting it's funding off. I wonder how many bitcoin advocates would like that outcome? |
|
|
|
Yes you can buy top ups without ID but to actually get onto any network you cant get past the ID. Theres no way to actually access the system without government ID.
Ah, so to buy a prepaid phone/sim card you need ID. Yeah I hope that never happens over here.... I have not ever given ID to people I bought phones or sim cards to. I buy phones and sim cards off of Ebay. USA. I use rooted Android phone and prefer Samsung S3, 7500 mAh battery, 64gb microsd+16gb internal memory, on which I keep 2 copies of Wikipedia. |
|
|
|
lol, well there was certainly some intelligent designing going on there. But let's think about what the really did. No one has ever created life from scratch. In this example a bacteria was modified to accept a "man-made" DNA sequence. This was made possible because we know what DNA is and how it functions in evolution. Indeed this experiment is another confirmation of evolution. In the future perhaps there will be a truly synthetic life form. If that happens then intelligent design will be a real thing, but it wont change our history of having evolved. To a biologist, all living things are the same living thing. I don't know why, but a DNA molecule started replicating in the past. It is still doing it and has branched into many species. Plants, animals, fungi, all are the same and one can even swap DNA between them. We are going to see some crazy things soon. Look, I already knew how you were going to respond. In so doing you admit that I have refuted your prior argument. That was easy because it was "classical Darwinism". Then you proceed to admit the future holds "crazy things". So we are in agreement. However, you can't duck and dodge the matter, even though you've tried. Neither is it proper to 'shift the goalposts' regarding the assertions of the religous ID crowd in order to substantiate the scientific approach and accomplishments. Look, the problem is not in a scientific approach to Intelligent Design - it's with a religious approach. We have had and will have Intelligent Design, period. We've had a little of it and we're going to have boatloads of it. When I say this, it means I don't need to refute your other statements, because we agree on the fundamentals. Let me know if you think that sums it up nicely. |
|
|
|
Ditto on the prices. The "gold" plans are like a third the cost of the "bronze" plans the company I work for charges us now so my healthcare costs under the program will decrease by 60% if it all stays true. Yes, I've considered all the factors besides just premiums. Or are you being sarcastic?
Of course I was being sarcastic. I know that there is no such thing as an out of pocket maximum under the individual market section of the Affordable Care Act. Those kinds of requirements only apply to employer sponsored plans. I find the US corporate response to all of this to be intriguing. Their rhetoric is that Obamacare is pure evil but their actions indicate they are extremely excited to dump their employees into the program. Their actions are virtually guaranteeing a full goverment takeover of healthcare in the US.
Your primary motivation is noted in my prior paragraph. BTW, I just checked my paystub for what I pay. I pay $1.21 per week for a family plan (I have five kids) that pays 80% on everything after the first $2500 (annual deductable) and has an annual out of pocket maximum of $6500. (pays 100% of expenses after I've paid $9000 total in a year, $2500 + $6500) I have a 'health savings account' attached to it in order to pay for the deductable and out of pocket expenses that I contribute $124.04 per week into. I hit that max out of pocket every year with five kids, and all total it's still cheaper than the "regular" plan, and if I ever don't hit that max in a year, I keep the difference for health care in my retirement years. Under the Affordable Care Act, this plan is illegal. AT a minimum, I'd be taxed an additional $3K or so as a "gold" plan. I'd be curious if you can find anything of comparable value for my family. Note, however, that there is no way that I'd be eligible for any kind of subsidy. EDIT: A regular plan (instead of the HSA/high deductable plan that I use) at my workplace would certainly be a more predictable expense, but the annual costs for me would be closer to $10,500 based on prior years. Given that the country is already spending 40% more than it takes in, said country would only shoulder additional cost burdens to buy votes. Nothing is real - least of all the attempt by a struggling individual to estimate his costs and/or his best avenue. Frankly I have no sympathy for the people that buy into attempting rational discussion around these types of scams. You are discussing the brand and nuances of the lipstick on the pig. The dollar will shrink in value with each year, retirement plans will shrink in value, savings will get 0% interest and will shrink in value. The wealth of the middle class will get "Hollowed Out" through money printing and increased taxes. Every vehicle of fiduciary management operated by banks will be shifted to help in this process. Yes I am talking IRA, SEP, 401K, trust plans, money market accounts. Wise up people. |
|
|
|
....I am an atheist, and I disagree that there is a god necessary for morals. That being said, I'm not a "positive" atheist, but rather simply an unbeliever after having spent half my life searching for a way to believe in a benevolent god. I think this thread is probably the wrong place, but I'd like to hear your views on the subject. Your post, unlike those who subscribe to most any religion, showed some thought. I gave up on the idea of a god that wants to be worshiped a good while back, but I'm still open, somewhat, to the idea that one might exist.
However, the ideas of basic morality are easily derived from human experience, and to a lesser degree, the non human world around us. Things just work better when you have an ethical framework. Not necessarily FASTER, but better.
-KB.
I agree. By most standards I am an athiest but I seem to get along quite well with religious people of the sort who consider religion a matter between themself and their superior. Not so well do I get along with the asses preaching whatever. The 80% of "athiests" who are socialists, I don't get along too well with. |
|
|
|
Sorry, but thats just sick.
Noone except the law enforcement should be allowed to carry weapons...
If i have the chance and time to shoot 6 bullets in head and NECK of someone else i cant be in mortal danger - hence the use of arms is unjustified.
Well, right there you've asserted the lady is better off dead. Then you have erred in your inferences as to the meaning of the 6 bullets. Many handgun instructors suggest to empty the gun into the bad guy. Many documented cases where the bad guy kept coming after being shot multiple times. Stick to talking about things you know about please. Oh, and by the way, many in "law enforcement" are not adept with weapons (and neither should they be). Many qualify by a range test with 50 shells once a year. |
|
|
|
....Unlike evolution, which has seen no contrary findings in over 150 years of research.
Huh? There are a group of hypotheses and concepts related to evolution, which have seen ongoing and continual revisions. The nature of a 'revision' is of course to invalid previous beliefs. Let's not oversimplify any of this. And note it is continuing, and there are many areas of genetics that are the subjects of controversy. I suppose revisions and tweaks to the theory are ongoing. But the idea that new species arise from older species through an evolutionary process has never been contraindicated. ....If you are aware of a finding contradicting evolution, please publish, you will likely get the Nobel prize for it. For the sake of argument, I will take an oppositional view. There certainly is proof of Intelligent Design which contradicts the theory of all species having been derived from other species through the process of evolution as you have purported. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2010-05-21-genome21_ST_N.htm****PWN**** |
|
|
|
....Unlike evolution, which has seen no contrary findings in over 150 years of research.
Huh? There are a group of hypotheses and concepts related to evolution, which have seen ongoing and continual revisions. The nature of a 'revision' is of course to invalid previous beliefs. Let's not oversimplify any of this. And note it is continuing, and there are many areas of genetics that are the subjects of controversy. |
|
|
|
.....back a bit to guns and assault. Most all of the folks who are particularly bad decision makers in the US at least tend to make these bad decisions while under the influence of some particularly harsh psychoactive substances... Selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors being the biggest culprit here. If one were to advocate a ban, SSRIs might be a more likely target than the particular weapon at issue, but I wouldn't even go that far myself. There is probably some good purpose for them and they are perhaps simply over-prescribed? It may not be an all out BAN that is needed, and just a bit more judicious use?
Part of where this line of reasoning leads is that if the abuse of the psychoactive pills is the culprit in mass murders (It is beginning to look that way) those who go nuts and kill due to the pills are not going to stop if they simply can't get guns. There are actually some interesting questions in this problem. For example, consider the particular way they go nuts. Maybe it is a way in which they are particularly eager to do something like pulling a trigger, and not interested in swinging an axe, or blowing up a building. |
|
|
|
I think it's worth mentioning that intelligent design is in no way a science. It is a religion. It starts with an answer, then looks for ways to support the answer that must be true. In science you start with a question and go where the answer takes you. Even if it contradicts your beliefs.
Actually, looking for "intelligent design" is not a religion. As practiced and conceived, it typically is a search for evidence or proof of a supreme being. This is a logical fallacy. If we did find evidence of intelligent design, what it would prove is the existence of a "prior intelligence of high order". EG, something millions of years ago that was pretty darn smart. If someone makes the leap from that to thinking they found proof of a supreme being, that's their problem. When we go listen on big radio telescopes for ET, we are looking for radio waves that are "intelligent designed". That is no religion, obviously. Neither is it science unless you conceive of it in terms of the null hypothesis. But simply listening to signals and reviewing them for patterns doesn't pass my smell test for "science". Finding a dinosaur bone or looking at a star in the sky is not science and does not require science. Science may be performed upon those observations, of course. |
|
|
|
.....
In my view, God is not separate from its Creation (and is definitely not a bearded elder on a cloud).....
Prove it. |
|
|
|
you seems quite depressed did you though of consulting a psychiatrist.
It says something about the person when insults start coming out. M I always thought it meant that the bringer of the insults had lost the argument on the merits. |
|
|
|
Poverty is necessary, because without poverty in some places, we couldn't live our privilieged lives with 90 inch plasma tv and Mercedes S-Class and diamond iPhones.
Diamonds and iPads would be much more expensive without poverty in Africa or Chicago.
Sincerely,
Supreme Leader of Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Kim Jong Un
Okay, well. Gotta have that 90!!!! |
|
|
|
ALL misery? Surely you would leave some for those who truly deserve it? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
